I need first to be assured that the PETITION includes investigation of WTC 7 and WTC 1 and WTC 2.

As I read the petition, I see instead this wording:
(excerpts from http://highrisesafetynyc.org/High-rise_Safety_Petition.pdf )
.
PETITION TO
AMEND THE
CHARTER OF THE CITY
OF NEW YORK TO
ESTABLISH THE
HIGH-RISE SAFETY INITIATIVE
....
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to establish, within the Department of Buildings, a responsibility
to investigate and report on the causes of past and prospective collapses of high-rise structures in the City;"
...
“High-Rise Structure”shall mean any building, whether used for commercial, residential, or other purposes, and without regard to its classification or categorization under any Law, that (i) has or had a height of
at least 20 stories, and (ii) is or was located in the City. This term shall NOT, however, include the buildings that, on and prior to September 11, 2001, were located at and known as 1 World Trade Center and 2 World Trade Center;"

I emphasized the word "NOT" which is present in the Petition, I object to this - but perhaps I don't understand why the term "not" is there.

Further, I object to the fact that there is NO mention in this Petition of WTC 7.

I would like to support the Petition but will someone please explain why investigation of the destruction of WTC 7 is NOT specifically included? and why investigation of 1 World Trade Center and 2 World Trade Center are specifically EXcluded?

I am not a lawyer; perhaps someone can explain to a poor physicist why he should support the Petition as it currently stands. Thanks.

If towers 1 and 2 are not to be considered as 'high-rise structures in the City,' then what NYC structures would be considered 'high-rise'?!

Was the thinking maybe that support might be more difficult if it were too readily perceived as an indirect way of investigating 9/11, and so the exclusionary language re WTC 1 and 2 is intended to reassure such people that that's not what this is about? They then (so the thinking might be) could more easily give their support--not realizing that the bill would still cover WTC 7, and so would still lead to an investigation of that aspect of 9/11.

But if that's the rationale (and I can't think of any other possibility right now), I don't agree. Either don't specifically mention any of the three buildings, so that they are all still covered by the general languare regarding what a New York City high-rise is/was; or, specifically mention all three of them. Above all, do not specifically EXCLUDE any of them.

I am just having trouble with the language of the PETITION, and wish someone could explain how the Petition supports the re-investigation we seek... so that I can donate in good conscience to this effort.

The petition leads to the investigation of 7 if successful, but for some reason it excludes the Twin Towers, which seems odd. I though the point of this petition was to get support for the investigations by stealth: a safety initiative without specifically mentioning 9/11 or any of the WTC buildings.

Simon is correct. WTC 7 meets the petition's definition of a High-Rise Structure and would therefore be investigated if the initiative passes. The petition would also mandate the investigation of any future high-rise collapses. WTC 7 was not hit by a plane and therefore should be of great concern to voters, particularly after they see dozens of ads showing WTC 7's collapse on TV.

I have been communicating with one of the principals of this initiative, who took the time to patiently explain to me the legal and political realities behind the wording. WTC 7 will be emphasized during the campaign and is the focus. Saying more about the strategy might possibly jeopardize things (I think) so I wish to just say that I now gladly lend full support including a donation to this initiative!

I listened, and still don't understand the reason why--instead of simply not mentioning them specifically one way or the other, and letting the definition of 'high rise building in New York City' serve to include all three--WTC 1 and 2 are instead specifically EXcluded in the petition's language.

On another point, I understand that Ted Walter and the organizers of this effort believe (based on the fate of the NYCAN petition) that they need to try to work within existing city institutions as much as possible. Unfortunately, it appears that this means entrusting such an investigation to the NYC Commissioner of Buildings. It may be best to 'give it a shot' with this petition, as Ted Walter recommends; but having observed the ease with which public officials lie, especially about anything related to 9/11, I still have a hard time imagining the NYC Buildings Commissioner--whoever that turns out to be--carrying out a good faith investigation, even if the safety initiative becomes law. I wish I weren't so pessimistic (apprehensive?) like that, but there it is.

I too don't believe any honest investigation can be conducted in the U.S. If I were a betting man, I would bet that even if this passed, they would likely use the NIST report on WTC7 as their report to avoid a real investigation or play games with the wording or amend it afterwards to avoid looking at the WTC again.

The good that may come from it is the guarantee investigations for future "collapses" in case the perpetrators attempt it again. Why not, they got away with it once, they may try and draw from the same well again. Of course it only protects all only if it is adopted nationwide.

I still think the cause is worthy. However, it may be the other legal challenges against NIST's report that may be more fruitful. Falsifying NIST's report(s), I believe, is this first step to getting a new investigation. What I am afraid of is this will be another JFK where 50 years from now, 80% of people know that official explanations are false, but nothing is done.